(Washington) Defense of Marriage Initiative accepted by Secretary of State

[TechBear_Seattle]

Our press release:

Defense of Marriage Initiative accepted by Secretary of State

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Seattle, WA – The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.”

Mr. Gadow also stated, “Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law.”

If passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;

* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”

* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

This initiative is the first of three that WA-DOMA has planned for upcoming years. The other two would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together, and make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

The text of I-957 and further information about the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance can be found at the group’s website: www.WA-DOMA.org.

We expect to have petitions available in about two weeks, then we have until July 6 to collect and turn in 224,880 valid signatures from registered Washington voters.

Those who have visited our website before should take another look, as it has been updated and more content will be added soon.

Added: Link to the Washington Sec. of State's official list of Initiatives to the People for 2007. Just in case anyone wants to see what else participatory democracy is cooking up in Washington State. :hi:

[tanyev]

1. Wow. This should be interesting.

Will all related news stories be posted at the website?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. All that we can find, yes

We are sending out this press release and the statement it mentions by post today, and by email tomorrow. We have a Media page that will go up once we start seeing mention elsewhere.

If you spot any news stories or blog posts about Washington's I-957 (aka the Defense of Marriage Initiative), or if you have any recommendations to add to our contact list, PLEASE let us know by emailing the info to [e-mail]

[BOSSHOG]

2. You Go WADOMA

May I suggest that videoptaping the act of making babies also be made a requirement. And that penalty for divorce is death and that it be grandfathered 20 years for any christians who have divorced.

"Proof of Procreation!!!"

Long Live WADOMA.

My wife and I (flaming liberals) have been happily married 33 years, and have produced no children. Please "christians" take us away to your concentration camps.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Conservatives have long claimed that marriage exists solely for procreation

The state Supreme Court agreed with that position back in July and in effect called into question the validity of all childless marriages in the state. We, conscientious citizens that we are, are only trying to clean up the huge mess the Court left behind. :toast:

And anyway, if same-sex couples can be barred from marriage because they can not procreate together, the state constitution's requirement that all laws must be enforced equally requires that all couples that can not or will not procreate must equally be barred from marriage. It's only fair.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Dontcha know

those "christian" motherfuckers just hate the notion of fairness, just like the right wing haters on the radio.

I'd love to see WADOMA go nationwide.

[meegbear]

5. I love technicalities!

:thumbsup:

[msongs]

6. passive-aggressive gay bashing ....

kaugh all you want, such an idea is still anti-gay marriage.

a better deal would be to prohibit divorce.

msongs
www.msongs.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Speaking as a gay man who is legally barred from marriage, I disagree

About it being gay bashing, I mean. That I-957 is passive-aggressive, well, that's how we do things in Seattle. If you ever want to see real passive-aggression, sit in on a meeting of the City Council :rofl:

The problem is that any initiative to create equal marriage would very likely fail. Failure would only entrench the current view of marriage as a special right exclusive to heterosexuals. And strictly speaking, there is no more recourse regarding state law because the state Supreme Court has ruled, so our options are a bit limited.

You will notice in the press release that we are planning three initiatives: to make procreation a requirement for marriage, to prohibit divorce or separation when the couple has procreated, and to make the act of procreation the equivalent to marriage. The state constitution requires that initiatives have only one subject, so we can not group these objectives into a single ballot measure, and doing one a year allows us to better direct our resources. We believe these three initiatives fully implement the premise of the Andersen decision -- that marriage exists for the purpose of having and raising children -- and are ordered from merely silly to completely absurd.

If you look at our website, I think we make it plain that we do not particularly want the initiative to become law. What we want is to prompt public discussion on the premise of Andersen, expose the bias at its heart, and force the state Supreme Court to strike Andersen down, piecemeal if necessary. If this is not obvious enough, I am open to suggestions in how to make this clearer.

[BOSSHOG]

9. Its plenty clear to me

Anything to expose hateful "christian" lunatic fools for what and who they really are is fine by me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I had to read this twice before I was sure it was a parody.

It's scarily close to the truth.